Okay aside from everyone being catholic ... anyone else think that the dark ages were the golden age ?
why do they call it the dark ages anyways they should call it the Godly age... none of this science things that make ppl doubt God... Iran would be the best country in the world only if it was not Islam (aka I Steal lie and Murder)...

Please try not to trash Eastern Europe. There may be a few shitty corners by your standards, my standards and even those of the locals, but that's pretty rare. In most places I think you'd be blown away by the landscape, the architecture, the history and the night life.

they're is nothing but truth in this quote atheist... you call me names like poe and troll but you do not know what that means... (poe was a great poet like me) and all the other countrys from america are bad place because few of them accept Jesus Christ unlike america where the true christian mostly live in... (by true christian i mean fundamental christians or fundies as the unsaved call them... )

Psalms 22 :1 (I think) The fool hath saith in his heart... There is no God.

oh and why do you need to check a box to say your a human... oh i now.... some of you (evolutionists) think some animals might change to become smarter so they type here... all the smart ppl like me (smarts is God Given only if you deny Christ you deny smartness) now that evolutionism is a false theory... read Refuting Evolution bu johnathan sarfati... and go to

he TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest response to what in fairness can only be described as evolutionism—the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins). This doctrine is abundantly evident in much material advocating the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution origins model, including—but not limited to—the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and the “Talk.Origins Archive” website.

Advocates of evolutionary theory practice evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data. This fact (which many of them zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, and effectively disqualifies them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science, though much material is published by evolutionists under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced scientific inquiry.

The contributions posted at this site give some expression to the “other side”—dispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most advocates of evolutionism, namely:
1. The myth that the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution belief system—as heavily popularized by today’s self-appointed “science experts,” the popular media, academia, and certain government agencies—finds “overwhelming” or even merely unequivocal support in the data of empirical science
2. The myth that the alternative—biblical creation—somehow fails to find any compelling, corroborative support in the same data

The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science. Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed. Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs, while heaping out-of-hand dismissal and derision upon all doubters, spurning the very advice of Darwin himself.

This site is one answer to such unreasonable—and unscientific—practices...

here is an good article by Jerry Bergman Ph.D showing that mutation is not good thing at all...now i dont even understand what he is saying becaue there is to much long words and hard science words... but i know from the Bible that evolutionism is false anyway ... but anyway here it is...

It is commonly claimed that Darwinism is the cornerstone of the life sciences and that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” To evaluate this claim I reviewed both textbooks used to teach life science class at the college where I teach and those I used in my university course work. I concluded from my survey that Darwinism was rarely mentioned. I also reviewed my course work and that of another researcher and came to the same conclusion. From this survey I concluded that the claim “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is not true.
Introduction

T he dean of American biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975), claimed that “evolution” is the cornerstone of biology and is central to understanding both living and extinct organisms (1973). His statement that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” has been repeated in thousands of articles in order to argue that Darwinism must have a central place in all areas of science education, including medicine, agriculture and biotechnology (for example, see Antolin and Herbers, 2001, p. 2379). A recent Google.com search revealed over 50,000 hits for this single quote. Consequently, Darwinists argue, evolution must be a central part of all public school and college life science classes. In the words of the National Academy of Science, evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things” (1998, p. viii, emphasis mine). Prosser concludes that this claim is made because

The Origin of Species has had more influence on Western culture than any other book of modern times. It was not only a great biological treatise, closely reasoned and revolutionary, but it carried significant implications for philosophy, religion, sociology, and history. Evolution is the greatest single unifying principle in all biology (1959. p. 539).

Dawkins opines that, without Darwinism, “biology is a collection of miscellaneous facts” and before children “learn to think in an evolutionary way” the information that students learn

will just be facts, with no binding thread to hold them together, nothing to make them memorable or coherent. With evolution, a great light breaks through into the deepest recesses, into every corner, of the science of life. You understand not only what is, but why. How can you possibly teach biology unless you begin with evolution? How, indeed, can you call yourself an educated person, if you know nothing of the Darwinian reason for your own existence? (2002, p. 58).

The argument that evolution is central to biology has been around for a few years. For example the Scopes Trial decision quoted the following words penned by Dr. E. N. Reinke, professor of biology at Vanderbilt University: “The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach ... physics without assuming the existence of the ether” (Scopes v. State of Tennessee. Opinion filed January 17, 1927 page 8). The ether idea has now been fully refuted, a fact that illustrates the fallibility of the biology claim.

Although Darwinists often talk about the central importance of “evolution” in gaining a basic understanding of the natural world, my research reveals that in the daily work of both scientific education and scientific research, evolution is rarely mentioned (or even a concern). This has been my experience as a research associate involved in cancer research in the department of experimental pathology at the Medical University of Ohio and as a college professor in the life and behavioral sciences for over 30 years. As Conrad E. Johanson, Ph.D. (Professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Physiology and Director of Neurosurgery Research at Brown Medical School in Rhode Island) noted, in the world of science research on a day-to-day basis, scientists

rarely deal directly with macroevolutionary theory, be it biological or physical. For example, in my 25 years of neuroscience teaching and research I have only VERY rarely had to deal with natural selection, origins, macroevolution, etc. My professional work in science stems from rigorous training in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, not from world views about evolution. I suspect that such is the case for most scientists in academia, industry, and elsewhere (2003, p. 1).

National Academy of Science Member and renown carbene chemist, Professor emeritus Dr. Philip Skell of Pennsylvania State University (see Lewis, 1992), did a survey of his colleagues that were “engaged in non-historical biology research, related to their ongoing research projects.” He found that the “Darwinist researchers” he interviewed, in answer to the question, “Would you have done the work any differently if you believed Darwin's theory was wrong?” that “for the large number” of persons he questioned, “differing only in the amount of hemming and hawing” was “in my work it would have made no difference.” Some added they thought it would for others (2003. p. 1). Of interest is Molecular, Cell and Development Biology majors at Yale University graduate school will no longer be required to take courses on evolution (Hartman, 1997). I have noted from my own research that many of the subscriptions to journals focusing on evolution at both the Medical University of Ohio and Bowling Green State University have been dropped (to both my frustration and over my objections).

I also interview several biology professors. Typical is Tony Jelsma, who obtained his Ph.D. in Biochemistry in 1989 and did postdoctoral research for almost eight years before landing a position teaching at the Dept. of Biology, Dordt College (Sioux Center, IA. 51250). His B.Sc. (1983) and Ph.D. (1989) were both completed at McMaster University, just down the road from University of Guelph. He stated that he did not encounter Darwinism in his work or studies except in one undergraduate biochemistry class where he studied the abiotic synthesis of adenine. If his degrees were in biology instead of biochemistry, he would likely have been exposed to much more Darwinism material.
A Survey of Textbooks

Having taught biology, psychology and related courses at the college level for the past 30 years, I evaluated this claim by examining the content of the major textbooks that we have used to teach science courses. Most of the biochemistry/molecular biology, genetics, and cell biology texts we have used never, or hardly ever, mentioned Darwinism (see Appendix I). The only courses that covered it in any detail was Biology 101, Zoology and Anthropology (and even in these classes, in my experience, many instructors skip this section).

Even those chapters labeled “evolution” often spend much time on non-evolution topics, such as basic genetics, human development, population genetics, and similar areas. None of the anatomy and physiology textbooks we have used ever mentioned evolution. The only reference to it in the microbiology texts we have used is the development of bacterial resistance (which is not a problem for intelligent design or even creationists. See Bergman, 2003).
Discussion

Judging by these textbooks, Darwinism is often totally ignored in most science classes. Based on my review of new textbooks, the evolution content, especially of introductory textbooks, is increasing, likely in response to the intelligent design and creationist movements. Because I have much interest in the subject, I usually cover it in more depth than, in my experience, is usual. Many of the instructors at the colleges where I have taught largely ignore the sections on evolution, partly because there is a great deal of other material that must be covered and something has to be cut—and many teachers elect to skip evolution because it is one of the least-important subjects in most majors. How many health care workers need to understand Darwinian theories? (No concern exists over the development of antibody resistance, something I stress in my microbiology class.) In short, at least judging by the major textbooks used, the often repeated claim about Darwinism being central to natural science is false.

If, as Dobzhansky stated, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973 emphasis added), why is it rarely, if ever, mentioned in most natural science books? We usually use the leading college texts in each area (for example, the A&P text we use is the 10th edition of Hole, a standard text). And why is it a minor topic even in most introductory biology books that cover the subject in more depth than most all other courses except formal classes on evolution?

While developing a college-level course on evolution, I surveyed most 4-year colleges and universities in Ohio and many in Michigan. Biology majors at the schools surveyed were required to take only one class in evolution (and all schools surveyed used the same text, that by Freeman and Herron, a fairly good text that I also considered for my own evolution class, which is now being developed).

My experience also conforms to the results of the research in this area. Several studies have found that most future science teachers do not complete courses that focus on evolution as part of their training (Rutledge and Mitchell 2002; and Rutledge and Warden, 2000). Moore found that “many of todays high school teachers don’t recall hearing the word evolution in their college biology courses, apparently because many biology professors do not teach evolution (Moore, 2004. p. 864). I am now surveying college biology students and have found that most schools either skip the chapters on evolution, or cover them in only a class or two. About 30 percent cover both creation and evolution and 20 percent in the students words, “try to jam evolution down our throats” and succeed primarily in turning off students to biology (and often science as well).

Another problem is many who teach Darwinism objectively are accused of not teaching it at all when in fact they cover it in much more depth then most teachers (see Moore, 2004a).
Coverage of Darwinism in My College Science Course Work

I also reviewed all of my graduate and undergraduate college course work in science to determine the time spent on Darwinism in each class. The review includes course work taken at Wayne State University, Medical University of Ohio, Bowling Green State University, University of Wisconsin, Miami University (Oxford, OH), University of Toledo, University of California, Berkeley, and several other colleges. All hours were converted to quarter hours, and some classes are in process.

The review of my own course work (over 1,000 quarter hours) completed at seven universities and five colleges conforms to my teaching experience. Except in courses devoted to evolution, the subject was rarely covered in science classes although it did come up occasionally in other classes (see Appendix II). I found that during my biology/natural science education, which entailed over eight years of full-time college, Darwinism was rarely mentioned. For my graduate degree in biomedical science, it never came up either in class or in the textbooks except to note that a gene was “evolutionary conserved” (meaning only that the gene sequence is very similar in most life forms, both advanced and primitive).

Because this is a topic in which I was very interested when in college, whenever it was discussed, I listened attentively (and would have remembered if it was discussed in the class). Based on detailed notes that I have retained, even the course that I took on evolution covered mostly the history of the creation-evolution conflict, genetics, animal breeding, and related topics. Darwinism actually was probably more often discussed in behavioral science classes and texts compared to natural science classes—and in these cases it was often assumed to be true. The evolutionary world view dominated, and Darwinism, including naturalism, was rarely questioned, even in my Bible as Literature class.

Dr. Scott Hanson also reviewed his course work at a major Canadian University, the results of which are found in Appendix III. The results of his survey were very similar to those found for my study.

The message that Darwinists convey to the public is often very different than what they recognize as true among themselves. Although they state to the public that, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” most scientists can “conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas” (Witham, 2002, p. 43). One “notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution. It’s day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology” (Witham, 2002, p. 43).

Darwinists “are loath to display publicly their internal divisions.” An exception is a challenge by mathematicians at Philadelphia's Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology that “drew evolutionists of some note.” The result of the conference was “the mathematicians and the biologist agreed to disagree” (Witham, 2002, p. 37). In short, the mathematicians believed that, in contrast to the evolutionists, it “seemed improbable that the mere shuffling of genes could yield such combinations as a DNA molecule of the human brain, or move through populations and produce dramatically new species” (Witham, 2002, p. 37).

The fact that presenting both sides may convince many students to reject the Darwinist side is a major motivation for the almost fanatic efforts by Darwinists to ensure that only one side of the controversy is taught. Eugenie Scott, in contrast to the empirical literature (and the experience of most teachers), argues that only pure unadulterated evolution should be taught (and should be taught as fact) because “using creation and evolution topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution.” Her real concern is that teaching both sides “may lead them to reject one of the major themes of science” i.e. Darwinism (Witham, 2002, p. 23). In this she is probably correct.
Conclusion

evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one (2000, p. 1051, emphasis mine).

O’Leary adds that the reason why

evolution is “highly superfluous” is that, in reality, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of biochemistry, which is what gives biology its place in the linked chain of sciences. Evolution is a form of history, a history that may or may not have happened as described in any current work on the subject (2004, p. 100).

Many scientists are aware of the fact that Darwinism is largely ignored in science instruction. One good example provided by Dawkins involved an after lunch discussion with the teachers. He concluded that almost every teacher

confided that, much as they would like to, they didn’t dare to do justice to evolution in their classes. This was not because of intimidation by fundamentalist parents (which would have been the reason in parts of America). It was simply because of the A-level syllabus. Evolution gets only a tiny mention, and then only at the end of the A-level course. This is preposterous, for, as one of the teachers said to me, quoting the great Russian American biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky ..., Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’ (2003, p. 58).

This statement is ideologically not factual. Biology makes perfect sense without ever mentioning Darwinism. Likewise Shanks’ (2004 p. 228) claim that “evolutionary biology is the veritable glue that holds all the disparate branches of biological inquiry together and gives common focus to their collective endeavors” could hardly be true if it is not even covered in most science course work. Shanks argument that if you take away evolution “the biological sciences would degenerate into an incoherent collection of rudderless ships” is irresponsible because evolution is often not in either course work or textbooks. The problem is, as recounted in The Harvard Crimson:

Although the postmodern era questions everything else—the possibility of knowledge, basic morality and reality itself—critical discussion of Darwin is taboo. While evolutionary biologists test Darwin’s hypothesis in every experiment they conduct, the basic premise of evolution remains a scientific Holy of Holies, despite our absurd skepticism in other areas. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins writes: “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who does not believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane.” Biologists continue to recite the worn credo, “the central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution.” But where would physics be if Einstein had been forced to chant, “the central unifying principle of physics is Newtonian theory,” until he could not see beyond its limitations? (Halvorson, 2003, p. 4).

My conclusion also agrees with Wells, who also concluded the claim

that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is demonstrably false. A person can be a first-rate biologist without being a Darwinist. In fact, a person who rejects Dobzhansky’s claim can be a better biologist than one who accepts it uncritically. The distinctive feature and greatest virtue of natural science, we are told, is its reliance on evidence. Someone who starts with a preconceived idea and distorts the evidence to fit it is doing the exact opposite of science. Yet this is precisely what Dobzhansky’s maxim encourages people to do (Wells, 2000, p. 247).

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Bert Thompson Ph.D., Jody Allen R.N. and Eric Blievernicht B.S. for their very helpful feedback on an earlier version of this article.
References

okay aaa... i didnt read all of it too... it is to long so i dont blame you... but since it was long and good and wow the person who wrote it has a phd degree... so i thought i should show you atheist it... so after read it will you accept Christ now ???

While it warms the cockles of my heart to see another True Believer out there spreading the Good News that everybody else is doomed to burn in Hell, at least one of the Creationist works you're citing mentions "the Earth-Moon system."

This notion of an Earth-Moon system is modelled on ungodly orbital mechanics and the satanic Round Earth model. The Scriptures make it clear that the Earth is a flat plate, and that the moon is only a few miles across and only a few hundred miles over our heads. Charles K. Johnson went to his grave defending the Truth of the Biblically-described flat earth -- how dare you defame his memory!

okay show me the Biblical support for your sayings... dont use science because science is trash... ( i was teached creation science in school and i saw that it was stupid.) just give me the word of God forget creationism...